If 7,000 yards

[Matt_Cohn]

was a challenging tournament yardage for a golf course in 1985, shouldn't it be about 7,800 yards now?

If the TPC Stadium Course at PGA West was built at 7,200 yards in the 1980's, shouldn't we see more 8,000 yards courses by now?

We all know the ball goes 10% further now than it did then. So why haven't tournament setups reflected that?

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Have narrower fairway widths and tucked pin positions, to cite two examples, effectively lengthened tournament courses?

[Doug Siebert]

We should, but I think 8000 yards is a psychological barrier that would force everyone to realize things have got out of hand, so it is untouchable for now.

But if you think about the clubs most pros are using to approach greens now versus what they were using 25 years ago, its pretty clear courses are playing shorter despite being somewhat longer in terms of yardage.

Like Phil says, there are other ways to compensate, but those tucked pins aren't quite so nasty when they've got wedge in their hands.

[Steve Kline]

Matt - I remember reading a book on the Old Course. Today, for the course to play as long as it did around the turn of the century it would have to be 12,000 to 14,000 yards. I'm pretty sure I'm remembering all that correctly.

[Rich Goodale]

Steve

Given that James Braid won the 1905 Open at the Old Course with a 4-round total of 318, how long would the course have to be today for Tiger to shoot 318?  12,000 yards seems about right.

[David Ober]

was a challenging tournament yardage for a golf course in 1985, shouldn't it be about 7,800 yards now?

If the TPC Stadium Course at PGA West was built at 7,200 yards in the 1980's, shouldn't we see more 8,000 yards courses by now?

We all know the ball goes 10% further now than it did then. So why haven't tournament setups reflected that?

There are many reasons, one being: Courses do not get proportionally harder as they get longer, they get MUCH harder. The longer a hole, and the longer a shot, the easier it is to hit a shot off line. A 3% alignment miss on a 180 yard shot is not nearly as bad as a 3% alignment miss on a 220 yard shot.

That's one of the reasons that, even though courses have been lengthened tremendously from the 1950's to today, there's not a huge difference in scoring. There are other reasons, of course, but length does not just add yards, it greatly increases the need for precision as well.

[archie_struthers]

 


You'd have to qualify this discussion to tournament golf, which is already moving in this direction....I'm not sure it's good ....smaller greens and more rough might be a better direction to move.


archie

[Phil McDade]

Like Phil says, there are other ways to compensate, but those tucked pins aren't quite so nasty when they've got wedge in their hands.

Doug:

Just based on anecdotes I hear on TV tournaments (maybe not the best source, admittedly), I get the sense that pins are being "tucked" much closer to the edges of greens, and nearer trouble (traps, water, fast-running slopes, junk) than perhaps a generation ago. I agree about wedges negating tucked pin positions, but a 7-iron to a tucked pin can still represent a challenge. and force a golfer to think about going at a flag, which in my mind effectively lengthens a hole.

I also wonder about green conditions. My sense is that greens -- due to agronomy practices, better grasses, and maintenance for tournament conditions -- "hold" shots better than they used to, again, from the 1960s and 70s, effectively shortening holes. It's really not all that often you see fast and firm conditions through the green at many tournaments these days, although some of recent cool and windy weather in Florida this year has resulted in a brief interruption of the usual birdie-fests.

[J Sadowsky]

Matt:

Have narrower fairway widths and tucked pin positions, to cite two examples, effectively lengthened tournament courses?

But that's a DIFFERENT challenge, not the same challenge altered, right?  Doesn't that fundamentally change the nature of the way the course is being played?  Doesn't that take away from the original, intended strategy?  We saw that when John Daly just knocked everything over the trouble at St Andrews, and we're seeing it more and more with other pros as well. 

But then again, since the average golfer is still hitting it 250 or less, does this matter?  Maybe we should just have a few courses for pros, that they can mess with all they want, and let the rest of us continue to have fun with classic and new courses that are still challenging us the way they were meant to?

[JESII]

I personally think it's foolish to do anything to your golf course when the TV guys are coming...other than greasing the greens more than normal...let them do whatever they are going to do.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Have narrower fairway widths and tucked pin positions, to cite two examples, effectively lengthened tournament courses?

But that's a DIFFERENT challenge, not the same challenge altered, right?  Doesn't that fundamentally change the nature of the way the course is being played?  Doesn't that take away from the original, intended strategy?  We saw that when John Daly just knocked everything over the trouble at St Andrews, and we're seeing it more and more with other pros as well. 

But then again, since the average golfer is still hitting it 250 or less, does this matter?  Maybe we should just have a few courses for pros, that they can mess with all they want, and let the rest of us continue to have fun with classic and new courses that are still challenging us the way they were meant to?

Justin:

I'd agree it's a different challenge, but not radically different. Say you're sitting in the fairway with the pin in the middle of the green. You're more likely to hit it closer to the pin with an 9-iron than a 6-iron. Now take the same situation, and have a pin that's tucked five feet from the edge of a green, which if you miss slightly left or long, you're headed down a slope and into a pond. That presents a much riskier shot for the 8-iron, and thus somewhat negates the point of pounding a driver down the fairway into 8-iron range, when they know they won't be going for that pin anyway. So they lay back off the tee, choosing a fairway wood and a safer approach into a green with a severely tucked pin. The tucked pin effectively lengthens the hole. I'd argue.

But, your larger point is probably correct. Narrowed fairways and tucked pins do alter to some extent the nature of the course (and Tiger is the one who's really shown how length and bombing the ball can bring TOC to its knees). But I'm guessing most tournament courses lack the needed room to move tees back to 8,000 yards, which is Matt's original argument. And I'd argue keeping lengths in the 7,200-range, rather than extreme lengthening, allows more players to compete at the highest levels. I think if you lengthened courses to near-8,000 yards, you'd see a very small cadre of players able to effectively compete at PGA-level tournaments.

[Melvyn Morrow]

If 7,000 yards.

I firmly believe that golf is being let down by those in charge.

We have a crisis on our hands, requirement for longer course, acceptance of electronic, course maintenance, restrictions on usage of water soon to be forced upon some part of the world, the list seems never ending. But what are the Governing bodied doing about it. Perhaps it is wrong to say nothing. But compared to the FIA in Motor Sport re Formula 1 our guys are going backwards.

Technology should not be a no-no in golf. It should be leading the way to resolve most of our problems. If the FIA can restrict engine size, take away drivers aids to improve the sport and give the drivers more control, why oh why can’t a similar thing be done in golf.

Clubs and ball can be designed to give reliability, balance and limitation on distance travel either with the ball alone or a combination of both ball/clubs.
Problem, no leadership – no direction and by just looking at comments on GCA even us golfers are not one on the matter. However that has not stopped the FIA, they are making new laws with some debate.

Longer courses are not the answer for the Pro game nor for the average club or courses. The problem is being able to buy more land, but in most cases the older clubs have nearly run out of land, so we build more newer course at a time when golf is already being perceived as an expensive sport and starting to loose players. We can’t afford new super long courses both in construction and current maintenance costs, something closer to home needs to be done and sometime soon.

Technology can give us the answer, but will golfers accept the reverse movement in distance to, say 5,500 to max 6,500 yards.

The governing bodies need to develop a serious strategy and invite the manufactures to make realistic proposals before offering a limited period debate.

I don’t want to see the sport change but I accept that something needs to be done and now is the time we need strong leadership with workable ideas to try resolve our current problems and those potential environmental ones looming on the horizon. That is why I am following Ian Andrew’s interesting topic on ‘The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada’. Seeing and looking at a problem that will affect many, many course into the future.

Long Courses are in my opinion a non starter and the soon we realise that the better it will be for the game.

[JESII]

Melvyn,

Why do you feel longer courses are required?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jes

I don't know, something to do with being able to tee off on the first and ball drops straight into the 18 hole with just one bounce.

Hope that expalins

[JESII]

Jes

I don't know, something to do with being able to tee off on the first and ball drops straight into the 18 hole with just one bounce.

Hope that expalins

Melvyn,

I hate to be dense, but I dod not understand...are you know hitting the ball so far that you go 'round the course with one mighty swing?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jes

A Hole In One!!!

[JESII]

Melvyn,

With all due respect, I think you analogy to auto racing is completely of base.

FIA seemingly has too motivations for reigning in car speeds...1) safety   2) competition

Obviously you would carry the competition angle into golf...here's what you're not considering...the guy that's winning every event is not using the equipment that is any better than anyone else...does Nike actually sell golf equipment? I don't know anyone that plays the stuff.

The ruling bodies have not ruined a single golf course due to the perceived need to lengthen...sadly, the egos at the clubs themselves get that credit.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont know why but an 8,000 yard course just does not seem right, equally a 700 yard hole seems crazy. I think 7200 yards is about the magic number for a golf course, that with forward tees say to about 6000 yards allows a top course playable for all. A course 6700 yards and par 70 is pretty much the same as 7200-par 72. The real sense is to limit the ball for the better player perhaps to 85%.

[Matt_Cohn]

The real sense is to limit the ball for the better player perhaps to 85%.

Agreed, but if that doesn't happen, then we could just lengthen courses by approx. 15%, about 1,000 yards, to get the same effect. Right?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jes

Clearly you just don’t understand golf.

It’s not always about winning, nor is it about Tiger and a few professional.
It’s about tens of thousands of ordinary people playing a game they enjoy, sometimes on their own, sometimes with others and sometimes in a competition.

It’s a game for all seasons and people. I for one would like it to remain that way.

Our Governing bodies are more interested in making money than anything else. There is very little evidence of any of the millions made in golf ending up at the local clubs.
 
Don’t worry I won’t stop long courses, but they will be stopped, not by our governing bodies but due to environmental issues. A few dry years, will hit North America harder that it will hit us in the UK, many Canadian and American course will be forced to close, due to constraints on water which will reflect in rapidly increasing costs and guess what, these will be passed on to the players in the form of higher Green & Membership fees.   

No one wins. Perhaps with a little less testosterone and a clear understand of the bigger picture many of the clubs & courses can be modified to meet this new environmental challenge.

The point I was making is that we need our Governing bodies to take the lead like the FIA.

[Adrian_Stiff]

No, because some golf courses cant be extended. Almost all courses have some tees already at property limits. The real problem with increased distance from the tee is that hazards that were strategic are no longer, to move them 15% further on is a costly process, so what happens is that the course is not enjoyable or challenging for all. Some of the older courses around 6000 yards are not likely to be played on a regular basis by 'the new breed of big hitters', it is these courses that need to perhaps have their own ball that is limited to say a 80 or 85 or 90 % flight in order to recreate the problems originally intended by the architecture. This 'local ball' does not need to be used by all, perhaps compulsory as a local rule for category 1 golfers (hcp 5 or better) and at the discretion of other players.

[Matt_Cohn]

Fine, if you want to be picky, then we should build NEW tournament courses that are 1,000 yards longer than our current courses. Whatever. Question stands...

[JESII]

Adrian,

Do you really think there are any 5 handicappers overpowering their golf courses? I believe, by definition, that these players are shooting in the mid-high 70's or low 80's...are you seriously suggesting they be forced to play a ball that goes 85% as far?



Melvyn,

Is it the price of modern equipment that has you turned off? Again, I apologize for any difficulties, but I can't seem to make sense of your complaints other than the ruling bodies not doing something for the sake of doing something...

[C. Squier]

No, because some golf courses cant be extended. Almost all courses have some tees already at property limits. The real problem with increased distance from the tee is that hazards that were strategic are no longer, to move them 15% further on is a costly process, so what happens is that the course is not enjoyable or challenging for all. Some of the older courses around 6000 yards are not likely to be played on a regular basis by 'the new breed of big hitters', it is these courses that need to perhaps have their own ball that is limited to say a 80 or 85 or 90 % flight in order to recreate the problems originally intended by the architecture. This 'local ball' does not need to be used by all, perhaps compulsory as a local rule for category 1 golfers (hcp 5 or better) and at the discretion of other players.

Its definitely unfortunate that those 6000 yard courses have become obsolete.  But then you have the courses that were 6000 yards, though over the years have been able to expand to current yardages seamlessly.  I think it would be a tough sell to OEM's to make a *local* ball, just from the confusion standpoint alone.  I don't want to see 8000 yard courses either, I think that's absurd too.  Holes will get so long that people won't be able to even see the flag waving, even when its straight on.  I think we're at the very end of the ball/club spectrum that we can keep those short courses and play the very newest ones.  If we go any further, I think those short courses will fall victim to Darwin.  As a side note, even the pros love the short courses, Fred Couples plays Shoreacres every time he's in Chicago, as its his favorite.    

I think this stems from people wanting to protect par.  Would any of us really care what the winning score is if that player was using strategy, all the clubs in the bag and the tournament wasn't just a putting contest?  I know I wouldn't.  Take a course that has two 390 yard par 4's.  Pinch one's landing zone, making driver a risky proposition.  But let them have at it on the other short par 4.  Two short holes, 2 different strategies.  The current Tour is a slugfest, but the best player has all the shots.  Tiger can win anywhere because he's versatile....lets embrace that part of his game and forget worrying if the winner shoots -30.  

On the other hand, a lot is smoke and mirrors.  With all the new technology, the game is still plenty hard for us amateurs.  The game isn't pitch and putt and regardless of what is in the bag, there are still plenty of bad shots hit.  The game is the ultimate bell curve, I think you have to cater to those on the top of it and adjust for the others.  Super easy equipment for the very beginners and tricked up courses for the pros.....but back to reality for the rest of us.  

CPS

[Matt_Cohn]

BTW, as an example:

In 1953 when Hogan won the Open Championship at Carnoustie, the course was set up at 7,103 yards.

Based on that number, a 10% increase would be 7,813 yards, and a 15% increase would be 8,168 yards.